|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 0:36:39 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 0:36:39 GMT
The plot structure in the films were exactly the same, and the climaxes (the hurricane and the raining frogs) were the pretty much the same as well. Art is suppossed to be expression, not adaptation. Magnolia is adaptation. For me, it's far too similar to Short Cuts to be respected as a serious work of art.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 1:05:41 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 30, 2006 1:05:41 GMT
The plot structure in the films were exactly the same, and the climaxes (the hurricane and the raining frogs) were the pretty much the same as well. The plot structures of the films are not more than superficially similar. There are multiple characters, and their paths intersect. That's it. I've already specified how the narrative structures are fundamentally different, based on completely different philosophies of storytelling. It's not even a matter of opinion, you're as demonstratably wrong on this point as I would be if I said the narrative structures of Mirror and Videodrome were identical just because they both take place inside a character's imagination. Actually, Short Cuts is an adaptation, Magnolia is an original screenplay. As I said already, Short Cuts does little to nothing narratively that Nashville didn't do already. Altman just works with bigger chunks in Short Cuts. Anderson wrote Magnolia, it's an original screenplay. It apparently doesn't matter to you that the dozen or so characters Anderson created bear no resemblance to Carver's characters, or that the events of the film do not parallel the events of Altman's at all, or that the films are visually disimilar, or that the tone of Anderson's film is wrought and cathartic whereas Altman keeps his cold and satirical, or that the thematic core of the film is traumas and scars and forgiveness and salvation, whereas in Altman's it's the illusion of isolation and insulation. I don't even know what else to say, I'm just repeating myself and you're not responding to most of my points. I think you're looking at the films about as superficially as you could be: "Lots of characters, Los Angeles, interconnecting stories! Rip off!"
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:40:31 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 30, 2006 2:40:31 GMT
You forgot to mention that Magnolia also happens to be vastly superior to Short Cuts. Perhaps their key difference.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:49:13 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 30, 2006 2:49:13 GMT
I think they're both excellent, but I preferred Magnolia.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:51:41 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 30, 2006 2:51:41 GMT
I think their use of sound is different too. Basically, Anderson normally uses sound as a complimentary device to the roaming camera, we only hear who is talking onscreen at that time. Altman's use of sound is a lot less specific, more of a texture.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:52:39 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 2:52:39 GMT
The plot structure in the films were exactly the same, and the climaxes (the hurricane and the raining frogs) were the pretty much the same as well. The plot structures of the films are not more than superficially similar. There are multiple characters, and their paths intersect. That's it. I've already specified how the narrative structures are fundamentally different, based on completely different philosophies of storytelling. It's not even a matter of opinion, you're as demonstratably wrong on this point as I would be if I said the narrative structures of Mirror and Videodrome were identical just because they both take place inside a character's imagination. Wrong. In Videodrome, there's no scene where you see Max in a hospital bed with his family members surrounding him, and Max's memories are never portrayed either. Saying a Zerkalo/Videodrome comparison is the same as a Short Cuts/Magnolia comparison is beyond ridiculous. Where's your head? In Short Cuts, there's an earthquake, and we are shown where each character in the film is and what he/she is doing. In Magnolia, it starts raining frogs, and then we are shown where each character in the film is and what he/she is doing. It's the climax of each film, the moment that more or less brings everything together. Anderson obviously stole this idea from Short Cuts. I don't know how you can't see this. That is actually not very significant at all. It doesn't change the fact that Anderson stole Altman's ideas. Ummmm...why are you talking about Nashville? How does that film relate to this discussion in any way? ...the characters really aren't that big of a difference. I could sit around with 5-6 of my friends and come up with characters and make stories for them. Same thing; minor differences. You're right, they are visually and aesthetically disimilar, another minor touch-up that Anderson added to Altman's genius. Ummm...I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Dr. Finnigan blowing up at his wife about her cheating on him towards the end wasn't cold and satirical now was it? What about what Chris Penn did to the girl right before the earthquake? What about the baker and Casey's parents? You're passing off your own opinion as fact again wetdog. You're also contradicting yourself, as usual. You're always going on about how the thematic core of movies is lucid, and how nothing is objective, and how the real core of cinema lies in its aesthetics. Then you go ahead and post this garbage in order to justify your own argument. You do it every time man, it gets old. You're a walking contradiction. With that said, the "thematic core" of each film is generally the same; I actually don't think either film made an attempt to really say or deeply explore anything. The core of the films lie in their plot structure, in their central idea of the interconnecting stories. It's rather simple, I think, but massively insightful and complex at the same time. That's why I feel Anderson's film is unoriginal, he took the central idea of the film from Altman and simply made changes to it. An artist is suppossed to have his/her own ideas, they're suppossed to express their own creativity and provide their own insight. Anderson simply didn't do that with Magnolia.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:53:01 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 2:53:01 GMT
You forgot to mention that Magnolia also happens to be vastly superior to Short Cuts. Perhaps their key difference. lol
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 2:54:55 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 30, 2006 2:54:55 GMT
I think their use of sound is different too. Basically, Anderson normally uses sound as a complimentary device to the roaming camera, we only hear who is talking onscreen at that time. Altman's use of sound is a lot less specific, more of a texture. Watch the opening sequence discussing coincidence and whatnot. Pay specific attention to the sound mix. I think you'll change your mind.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 3:07:14 GMT
Post by Vercetti on Nov 30, 2006 3:07:14 GMT
Wow, two films with multiple characters that show what each are doing in the climax. That's hard to find!
Give me a break. Anderson is inspired by Altman, and Altman even had Anderson assist him in directing his final feature, but to say he ripped off Short Cuts is a stretch. And as for Nashville, it's relevant because Altman did the same thing there way before Short Cuts. Anderson's directing skills are far different from Altman's. Both are great.
In any deal, there are countless films following this setup. Whether it be Crash, Nashville, or whatever.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 3:24:33 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 3:24:33 GMT
Wow, two films with multiple characters that show what each are doing in the climax. That's hard to find! Umm...Short Cuts and Magnolia are actually the only films I've seen that do that. I got the impression that Anderson did a "Well, I can't think of a good climax on my own, so I'll just do what Altman did and make it rain frogs instead of an earthquake! Man, I'm a genius. This is the best film I'll ever make, period!" type of thing. He's a douchebag.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 3:26:52 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 3:26:52 GMT
Just to clarify though, I still think Magnolia is a great film, I just think it's unoriginal after seeing Short Cuts. That doesn't make it a bad film though, because I really, thoroughly enjoyed it.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 3:37:34 GMT
Post by Omar on Nov 30, 2006 3:37:34 GMT
I got the impression that Anderson did a "Well, I can't think of a good climax on my own, so I'll just do what Altman did and make it rain frogs instead of an earthquake! Man, I'm a genius. This is the best film I'll ever make, period!" type of thing. He's a douchebag. I was understanding where you were coming from until you made this statement. Do you honestly think that's what went through his head as he was developing this film? Anderson supposedly wrote "Magnolia" while hiding from a snake for two weeks in an isolated cabin owned by William H. Macy. Who knows, there might have been a VHS copy of "Short Cuts" there, and Anderson started writing. I made a short film for school once that was directly inspired by "Slacker" and "Blowup" right after I viewed them. But I didn't try to directly rip them off. I was influenced by the ideas the filmmakers expressed in those films, and I combined that with my own ideas to make my short film. I believe, among nearly every filmmaker that has ever lived, Tarantino is most famous for doing this. But I'm not comparing myself to any of those guys, but merely trying to make a point that you can be heavily inspired by an individual film, but something of your own comes out when you try to express that inspiration. You yourself said that art is supposed to be an expression. Maybe Anderson was expressing his love of Altman or "Short Cuts", and thus, expressing his love of cinema.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 3:50:24 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 30, 2006 3:50:24 GMT
I agree with Wetdog. There is just, fundamentally, a vast difference in the way Anderson and Altman handle their characters respectively. I really have trouble even comparing the two beyond the obvious basic plot setup similarities.
To me, Short Cuts was like a slight chuckle at an ironic coincidence. Magnolia was like a punch in the mouth while playing chess and listening to opera.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 4:13:39 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 30, 2006 4:13:39 GMT
The plot structures of the films are not more than superficially similar. There are multiple characters, and their paths intersect. That's it. I've already specified how the narrative structures are fundamentally different, based on completely different philosophies of storytelling. It's not even a matter of opinion, you're as demonstratably wrong on this point as I would be if I said the narrative structures of Mirror and Videodrome were identical just because they both take place inside a character's imagination. Wrong. In Videodrome, there's no scene where you see Max in a hospital bed with his family members surrounding him, and Max's memories are never portrayed either. Saying a Zerkalo/Videodrome comparison is the same as a Short Cuts/Magnolia comparison is beyond ridiculous. It's a good thing I didn't say that then. What I said was that you are as demonstratably wrong in your assertion that Magnolia and Short Cuts share an identical narrative structure as I would be if I said the narrative structures of Videodrome and... God I hate typing the same shit over and over. SEE ABOVE. I didn't say anything about hospital beds. Videodrome takes place in "TV Land", in a broken-down post-modern consciousness. Mirror takes place in a dying man's memory. I don't care if you agree with this. It doesn't have to be these two titles. Pick any two movies that share a totally superficial, obvious narrative conceit and say to yourself, "Movie X and Movie Y are narratively identical," and see how stupid it sounds. I have no doubt that the ending of Magnolia was an homage to Short Cuts. Did you know that Godard, on all of the films he made in the early 1960s, used to instruct his cameramen to exactly copy (omg steal) shots from old Hollywood movies? What a thief. That's hardly serious art. He hardly deserves your respect. Again, you can't steal ideas. You're being sensationalistic. The word you used was "adaptation", anyway. Magnolia is an "adaptation" of Short Cuts, you said. Well, Short Cuts is an adaptation of Raymond Carver's stories, and, following your line of reasoning, it's also an "adaptation" of Nashville, which in turn is an "adaptation" of any number of Aristotlian tragedies. This is total nonsense. Well, see, the thing is, you haven't seen Nashville, but believe me when I say that your argument about Short Cuts being an example of Altman's super original genius suffers a severe knock when you take into account that he did it all two decades previously. But you couldn't come up with a narrative structure that emphasises relationships they didn't know they had? You should read some 2000-year-old plays. "Coming in 1993 - a brand new 2000-year-old idea... if you haven't seen many movies, and you know nothing about the history of narrative art, this 100% original work of genius by the guy who brought you the altogether quite similar Nashville will blow you away." You have to be kidding... That's about the most unconvincing attempt at trying to brush off an argument. Minor differences? The entirety of each story is completely different! Am I on fucking Candid Camera here?! !!! This is getting idiotic. So the characters are different, the stories are different, the sounds and images are different - but the film's narrative is exactly the same because there's a lot of characters whose stories intersect in Los Angeles! Come the fuck on. Yeah, I think Altman holds it all at bay. This is a matter of taste, however. If by "lucid" you mean "subjective" then you're misusing the word. "Lucid viewing" is viewing the film as an object, emotionally detached, as you would in a classroom. I've never said "nothing is objective", if I was to claim that Aguirre was literally about a ballerina coming to terms with her latent lesbianism I would be unarguably wrong. Of course the "real core of cinema lies in its aesthetics", what else would it lie in? What is any of the above even in relation to? I've said nothing in here to contradict myself. There's a difference between me contradicting myself and you not liking it when I contradict you. If your best response to the contradiction is vague accusations, brush-offs and evasive non-sequiturs, then this discussion, such as it is, is going nowhere. Do you know what ad hominem means? Do you know what a non-sequitur is? I just read over the above post and it's absolutely soul-destroying trying to sift a coherent argument out of your jumble. In all future responses, I'll be using these signs where applicable, then I'll be moving straight on without another word, so don't waste your time. ad hominem!non-sequitur!I've been on the internet for 8 years and I've officially wasted enough of my life chasing my tail on message boards. I might red-flag some other logical fallacies if it comes to it. Try to make sense, and know you can't fool anyone with half a brain into thinking you're making a decent argument by being deliberately obtuse. Yeah, that's why I said you're looking at them in the most superficial way possible. Much like looking at Videodrome and Mirror and deciding they share an identical narrative structure just because both take place inside characters' imaginations. PS: If any of the above post seems a little impatient or acerbic, then I think I'm completely justified seeing as you're talking out of your ass. No hard feelings, though. xox
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 10:37:05 GMT
Post by Vercetti on Nov 30, 2006 10:37:05 GMT
Exactly, he was influenced heavily by Altman, but to dismiss him as a ripoff and douchebag is stupid. Especially since the climaxes don't even serve the same function for the characters.
I also love how the multi-character form, which is insanely common, and the mutual perspective climax is all that ties these films together while you call the other differences, such as completely different characters, dialogue, and narrative "minor differences." I'd call those pretty goddamn major differences.
The Killer is supposedly directly influenced by Le Samourai with the same plot, but Fat brings his own creativity to it. I have yet to see it, but it's supposedly a very great action film.
Besides, Wet Dog is right. I can't count how many plots I know say "The lives of several people in L.A." alone. Now there are many topical ones like That Hilary Swank movie where everyone's life intersects around a certain time when a car crash happens. Or Crash where everyone revolves around racism. Oh, but completely different stories, characters, and motivations are minor differences.
|
|
|
1999
Nov 30, 2006 20:06:58 GMT
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2006 20:06:58 GMT
I have no doubt that the ending of Magnolia was an homage to Short Cuts. Did you know that Godard, on all of the films he made in the early 1960s, used to instruct his cameramen to exactly copy (omg steal) shots from old Hollywood movies? What a thief. That's hardly serious art. He hardly deserves your respect. Godard has done quite a lot to deserve my respect, copying shots from old Hollywood movies in some of his films won't change that. Where did you read about that anyways? And in which specific movies did he employ this? Showing "homage" is essentially the same as stealing, the way I look at it. People use that word as an excuse for not having original ideas of their own. Yes you can steal ideas. It's quite a simple concept. If Mrs. Williams' 5th grade class is having a science fair, and little Jimmy overhears Peggy Sue's idea to build a solar system out of sticks and styrofoam, and decides to build one himself, he is stealing her idea. Is the idea of a solar system built with sticks and styrofoam completely new and groundbreaking? No, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Jimmy stole Peggy Sue's idea. Robert Altman directed Nashville, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. There's nothing wrong with making a film in the same style as a film you've already made. Aristotlian tragedies, eh? If you can find me one example of an Aristotlian tragedy that uses the exact same narrative structure as Short Cuts, then I will gladly admit I was wrong. Exactly... Altman did it two decades previously. Like I said, nothing wrong with a filmmaker making a film with a style he's already employed before. Again, give me some examples of 2000 year old plays that used this narrative structure, and I will gladly admit my defeat. The stories are different, but the concept is the same. Anderson stole the narrative structure: the frame for which the entire film was built on. You make it sound ridiculous, but really it isn't. It's all about context, perspective. The narrative structure in Short Cuts is so important to the film, that stealing that alone makes it a rip-off. It's like a painter who takes a canvas with a masterpiece of a painting already on it, and adds different colors and shapes. I like this side of you, wetdog. ;D
|
|
|
1999
Dec 1, 2006 0:38:23 GMT
Post by Vercetti on Dec 1, 2006 0:38:23 GMT
Yeah, Godard copied things from some old movies, doesn't matter for him, because he's done other good things. He's entitled to homage people. Completely hypocritical.
All filmmaker's use homages, I don't care who they are. Saying homaging is ripping people off is destroying all art. Every medium has homages from painting to music to cinema. You like Nirvana but don't mind their homages to The Melvins or many many other bands.
Smells Like Teen Spirit was described by Cobain himself as him trying to write a Pixies song. Give me a break.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
1999
Dec 2, 2006 18:13:56 GMT
Post by RNL on Dec 2, 2006 18:13:56 GMT
I have no doubt that the ending of Magnolia was an homage to Short Cuts. Did you know that Godard, on all of the films he made in the early 1960s, used to instruct his cameramen to exactly copy (omg steal) shots from old Hollywood movies? What a thief. That's hardly serious art. He hardly deserves your respect. Godard has done quite a lot to deserve my respect, copying shots from old Hollywood movies in some of his films won't change that. Where did you read about that anyways? And in which specific movies did he employ this? I've read it in numerous articles and reviews in books and on the net. It's not as though anyone was like, "NEWSFLASH! Scandal! Godard recreated Hollywood shots! Thief!" It's common knowledge. As for specific movies: I'm neither a Godard expert nor a classic Hollywood B-reel expert, but I'm presuming those films of his which are obvious deconstructions of genre tropes, such as Breathless, A Woman Is a Woman, Band of Outsiders, Vivre sa vie, Made in USA... basically his first 15 features. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know here if you're so willing to damn filmmakers for being principally inspired by other films. Sure. You have to understand that any filmmaker born after World War II has grown up in an audiovisual environment. In most cases, their primary influences are OTHER FILMS. You CAN make films that are primarily ABOUT other films and do so originally, creatively, personally, artistically, importantly. I give you Godard, De Palma, Tarantino - the three most famous examples of this mode of expression, where the primary subject matter is other films. Peggy Sue's idea is not original. Her intention is to "steal" the idea of a sticks-and-styrofoam solar system from whoever had that idea first, the conniving little criminal. Jimmy is made aware of her intentions, and is inspired to perform a similar act of morally bankrupt larceny. Regardless, however, Peggy Sue still has "her" idea, and therefore Jimmy has not "stolen" it from her (perhaps because an idea is most likely some kind of neural activity), in the same way that she has not "stolen" the idea from the first person to ever make a solar system out of sticks and styrofoam. Again, stealing is where I take it from you and you don't have it anymore. Hence the difference between theft and copyright infringement, one being a criminal offence, the other being a infringement of one's civil right to partially or wholly copy a particular thing or aspects of that thing. For instance, 100 years ago one could not print copies of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula or name a character Dracula or obviously replicate the story told in the novel because Bram Stoker's estate held a copyright on all intellectual property associated with that work. However, it was and is perfectly acceptable for a novelist to read Dracula, become inspired by it, and write his own novel about vampires incorporating characteristics of the creatures first applied to them in Stoker's novel, and even to structure it as a series of fragmentary diary entries. The law is an ass! THIEVES one and all! Just wait 'til you see Nosferatu, be it Murnau's or Herzog's, or Dreyer's Vampyr - they all "ripped off" Dracula, which itself "ripped off" the stories surrounding the life of Vlad Tepes along with any number of older vampire myths. I'm not sure whether Stoker was the first to use the fragmentary multi-character diary entry narrative style, but, if not, THIIIEEF!!! Short Cuts is still unoriginal, though. Whether you compare it to Altman's previous work, or to the Carver stories it's based on, or to Aristotlian tragedy. We've already established beyond argument that Magnolia doesn't use the exact same narrative structure as Short Cuts. The central narrative conceit that both are structured around, however, is the connections between people that those people don't know they have. This is one of the guidelines Aristotle laid down for Greek tragedies in The Poetics. The most famous Greek tragedy to conform perfectly to Aristotle's guidelines is Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. Aristotle claimed that dramas in which the outcome depends on an intricate chain of cause-and-effect relationships between people were superior to those that didn't, to those that relied more on the characteristics of those people. The only significant difference between the narrative conceits in Oedipus Rex and Short Cuts is that in the former most of the characters don't appear onstage. It's far from a new idea. Altman is a thief. So were all the great Greek dramatists. Yeah, right... Do I have to go on and on citing artists who've been inspired by other artists and "stolen" "their" narrative structures? I'm trying to highlight the lunacy of your argument, even though it should be glaringly self-evident. Every novelist who's ever written a novel in the first-person has stolen the narrative structure from the first novelist to ever do so. Every playwright to ever put a play within his play has stolen from Shakespeare, who was stealing from Giacomo da Lentini every time he wrote a sonnet. Every poet to every write a sestina has stolen from Arnaut Daniel, etc etc for everything from haikus to limericks. Every painter to ever paint a cubist image has stolen from the first painter to paint a cubist image, same goes for any painterly style. Every filmmaker to ever utilise parallel editing has stolen from the first filmmaker to ever do that, same goes for non-diegetic sound, or the first-person camera. If it's not becoming abundantly clear to you that you're talking crap then I'm afraid there's no hope. No it isn't. What it is like is a young English painter studying in France being struck by the work of the French impressionists, then returning to England and painting impressionistic pictures of the English landscape. Anderson was struck by Altman's multi-character dramas about those characters' subtle interconnections and went on to make a film in a similar style exploring his own personal concerns and knowledge and aesthetic, and expressing his own personality. It seems to me that Magnolia was a far more personal film for Anderson than Short Cuts was for Altman.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
1999
Dec 2, 2006 18:44:58 GMT
Post by Capo on Dec 2, 2006 18:44:58 GMT
Might it be of significance to consider Altman's admiration for Anderson, too?
Don Aguirre, how would you define a Douchebag?
And Don Aguirre, you've stolen your name from a film, which stole from history.
|
|
|
1999
Dec 2, 2006 19:27:00 GMT
Post by Vercetti on Dec 2, 2006 19:27:00 GMT
Exactly, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you love Nosferatu DVC? It's complete plagiarism in response to a denied book rights request. That's why it isn't called Dracula.
|
|